- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 00:23:35 -0400
- To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > > [Sorry all, sent this on Friday but the over-zealous W3C spam system > rejected it] > > I realize it is a long weekend in many places, but I hope people will > come to the call somewhat prepared to talk about: > > The RIF proposal made by Harold and Michael > [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html] > The new G/C/R hierarchy proposed by Paula > [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Towards_a_Rule_Interchange_Format%3A_Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors%2C_Requirements] To start the discussion on Paula's doc, here are some comments. All but one are hopefully minor and are requests for clarification. Only one is a major issue: the requirement for being able to represent an inference system. This has already been discussed extensively. I was sitting on the sidelines in this discussion, but, in my view, the proponents failed to make their case. --michael 1. Goal CSF 2 Requirement 2: Component languages follow same paradigms *** Not clear what is meant here. CSF 3 Requirement 3 Desideratum 1: RIF should accept OWL KBs as data *** Not clear what data is meant here. The A-box? Requirement 6: Type system / Datatype built-in predicates and functions *** Typing should be optional 2. Goal CSF 1 Requirement 2: Format for specifying the inference procedure (inference procedure interchange format) that can be applied to a set of rules *** This is very controversial as a requirement. Neither the use cases nor the intent are particularly clear. (Where exactly in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Operationally_Equivalent_Translations is it needed that an inference procedure should be communicated to another engine?) I didn't take part in the previous discussion of this subject, but I do share skepticism that others expressed towards this issue. CSF 2 Requirement 1: Definition of default behavior(s) *** Not clear what this means. 3. Goal CSF 1 What is the difference between # Desideratum 2: (Scoped) negation as failure is required # Desideratum 4: Representation of closed-world assumption for rule sets Is #4 implied by #2?
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 04:23:38 UTC